<p>I'm a sophomore at Univ. of Illinois-Urbana Champaign in Aerospce Engineering. At one point I was considering transferring to MIT but one of my profs who did all his degrees. at MIT said not to bother cuz the undergrad program is not that good in terms of teaching. He said it is extermely rigorous and its like completing a marathon but so much is thrown at students that don't learn as much and that they didn't go too deep into the fundamentals. I think he said they basically teach you how to think and don't focus on teaching the fundamentals. I think he said they cover everything in a class called Unified or somthing like that. Not sure. He is a very well respected prof, quite hard but one of the nicest people i've met. Anyone in Aero/Astro have any opinions. BTW, I am taking Aerodynamics, Aerospace Structures II, Control Systems, and Aircraft Stability and Control. How would that compare to the material covered in the sophomore year at MIT?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think he said they basically teach you how to think and don't focus on teaching the fundamentals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wouldn't learning how to think really be fundamental? I mean, knowing anything is pretty pointless if you can't think...</p>
<p>I think he was meaning that the program is very theoretical.</p>
<p>Actually I meant that it teaches you how to think but they don't go that far into each discipline. For example, (correct me if i'm wrong MIT Aero/Astro guys), we cover source/panel mthds and CFD Aerodynamics, we cover finite elemnt analysis in strucutres and we also have a dedicated class to stability and control as well as aerospace dynamics. From what I've seen on MIT's website just now, this material is all optional and is covered in electives which the student takes if he wants. Though I'm sure MIT students could pick it up much faster and probably excel at more than the avg. student here.</p>
<p>Hey aphelion, how is UIUC's aero program anyway?</p>
<p>It's pretty good. We're ranked 7 now in undergrad but it's stupid cuz Caltech and Stanford are ranked 5 and 6 respectively. They don't even have undergrad aero programs so technically we should be ranked 5. The faculty are quite good, more than 3/4 being from MIT,Caltech,Princeton. The only problem I have with the Aero dept. is that the course offerings are quite limited compared to other lower ranked aero programs and the all classes are taught once a year which is a ***** when you try to schedule stuf fin.</p>
<p>Unified- 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 16.04 are only four of the 20-some odd classes required for a major. I wouldn't say Unified covers all of aero/astro. In fact, aero/astro is the one major that requires the most number of credits to graduate. So, you learn plenty. Theoretical knowledge is much more difficult to acquire than practical knowledge, and it translates very easily into practice. There's a reason MIT's aero/astro department has such a good reputation- the pure depth of knowledge. Your professor criticizes MIT's approach to aero yet he did all his degrees there and you seem to find him knowledgeable as well. It can't have been that bad. (Now I'm assuming he was aero/astro, if he's not then he wouldn't be in a position to critique it - the departments are fairly exclusive of one another)</p>
<p>Pebbles, you're being the humble. MIT's department isn't good. It's great. Anyway, it's just my profs opinion and although he criticized the undergrad program, he says the grad program is light years better than any of its rivals. Anyway i'm not gonna bother transferring. All my core class would go to waste. I'd have to take all of Unifed again and take at least 2 years to graduate. I think i can finish at UIUC in a 1 more year if I do summer school. So I guess thats settled. I can always apply for grad school</p>
<p>I think it's very true that MIT's aero/astro program is like a marathon, but I don't think it's true that everything's taught in a very superficial way. If anything, taking Unified in the sophomore year exposes MIT students to everything students in most other programs learn in their junior and sophomore years -- and then MIT aero/astro students go on to take even more challenging, in-depth classes during their junior and senior years. Pebbles is right in pointing out that aero/astro most emphatically does not end with Unified.</p>
<p>i've heard from numerous primary sources that course 1 is the devil they combine everything from everywhere and throw it in so a lot of people drop it.</p>
<p>civil and environmental? </p>
<p>O_o you're nuts</p>
<p>Yeah... I've never heard of course 1 being notably more difficult than other engineering majors at MIT.</p>
<p>Actually, I had a friend who was able to graduate early because it was possible for her to do the entire course 1 major in two years.</p>
<p>Well I think Aero/Astro has to be tough. thats why everyone uses the term "u dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand that". :D</p>
<p>From my perspective, Cvil Engineering is the easiest major at UIUC, although it is ranked #1 in the country. Close second would be material science(also ranked #1), which in my opinin is not even real engineering, just some sexed up chemisty. Mechanical is somewhat difficult, but still doable. Theoretical and Apllied Mechanics is really hard but it's such a small department i'm not even gonna bother rating it. Electrical and Aero are by the far the hardest majors here. ECE is also the most selective dept. here and many people i know with good solid backgrounds switch out of it. Aero involves the most math and physics I think which is way the drop out rate after sophomore year is about 56%. Too many moron's getting into Aero cuz it sounds 'cool' and they think they can handle it. That's why i really respect MIT. Take in only the brightest and know that the vast majority of them will not cry and drop out when the workload gets tough. They really could learn something from that here.</p>
<p>Not related, but Aero/Astro building has the coolest computer lab ever. Dual LCDs and ridiculously fast desktops.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn't materials engineering be closer to 'real' engineering?</p>
<p>Engineering, in general, is hard. I don't think it's right to even qualify the "level of difficulty" more so compare the "level of difficulty" of various engineering programs. </p>
<p>If you have obtained degrees in various engineering programs and practiced each profession, then I might find your statement - regarding comparing the level of difficulty of each program - credible.</p>
<p>I know people who have gotten dual degrees in civil engineering and some other engineering (i.e. mechanical) and have stated that civil engineering is the easier one.</p>